RCN P2P settlement: ISP can throttle away starting November 1

No, it's not just Comcast. RCN was also sued for having its hand in the P2P …

Starting November 1, Internet service provider RCN can resume its discriminatory traffic management policies against peer-to-peer protocols—so long as it offers advance notice to customers.

Many of those involved in the debate over network neutrality appear to believe that ISPs simply don't engage in widespread traffic discrimination, and that the only possible example net neutrality supporters can dredge up involve Comcast and Madison River. Judging by their filings to the FCC, many DC lobbyists subscribe to this view. Take Charter, for instance, which told the FCC:

Years of study and scrutiny of broadband provider conduct by vigilant net neutrality proponents and federal agencies, as well as the Commission’s concern that improper conduct was “occurring in the marketplace,” have turned up nothing beyond the two isolated cases Madison River and Comcast/BitTorrent - both promptly resolved under the current regulatory regime. There is no evidence of broadband provider behavior harming consumers, of any market failure, or for that matter of any problem that actually needs fixing.

In fact, numerous class action lawsuits over traffic management have been filed against American ISPs over the last several years. Sabrina Chin brought her case against RCN back in 2008, alleging that the company identified and then throttled P2P traffic, rather than engaging in neutral congestion management practices.

Last week, a federal judge finally signed off on a settlement in the case. As New York District Judge Richard Sullivan noted, RCN "stopped using P2P targeted network management practices as a result of this lawsuit" back on May 1, 2009. RCN did not admit anything, though it "has represented that it stopped its throttling practices as a direct result of Plaintiff's lawsuit."

What do the 446,657 class members get from the settlement? Not much. RCN agreed to stop targeting P2P for 18 months after May 1, 2009, and it further agreed to stop all non-P2P traffic management for 18 months staring April 1, 2008.

Astute readers will note that the second exclusion period has already ended; the first will expire on November 1 of this year, less than two months after the settlement was signed. Mark Lyon, an Ars reader and a lawyer, filed one of six objections to the settlement.

"This case is interesting because the injunctive relief (stopping the blocking) happened before the class members were aware that it had taken place," he tells Ars. "When they got the notice, it was not clear that the blocking would resume within just a few months from when the notice was sent... It seems fundamentally unfair that RCN would get credit for unblocking their service during a period of time when customers had no reason to believe that action was related to litigation."

The judge heard the objections this summer, but ultimately concluded the settlement was fair. That's in part due to Comcast, which sued the FCC (and won) over just this issue. "At the time, the FCC had declared throttling of the type RCN engaged in an unlawful practice," wrote the judge, "the DC Circuit has since concluded that the FCC lacks the authority to make such a determination."

If the settlement were not approved and the case actually went to trial, the plaintiffs might very well do even worse, or lose altogether.

So that's it. The lawyers get $540,000, billing at a blended rate of $605 an hour. Sabrina Chin gets a token $3,000 for leading the charge. And RCN can do whatever it wants to do come November 1—though it has agreed to tell customers in advance about changes to its traffic management policies.

As for RCN's current practice, all that its "High Speed Internet Service Addendum" will say is that "RCN will undertake reasonable efforts at network management, traffic analysis, operational procedures and user policies that ensure appropriate bandwidth at all times for as many customers as possible."

I can see that those are small numbers against illegal P2P, but the innocent still exist?

I downloaded and now seed the Stainless Steel mod for Medieval Total War 2 via P2P. It's pushing 1.7 GB and is completely legal.

But that's the worst part about this. P2P traffic is being used for both legal and illegal activities, but can proportionately take up a lot of bandwidth, so Charter, RCN, and others would love to discriminate against this traffic and throttle it down.

On the one hand, Charter identifies that both instances of improper conduct have already been satisfactorily resolved under the current regime. On the other hand, it has been identified that the FCC does not have the legal authority to make such a determination.

So a satisfactory resolution is to keep doing what you're doing because the FCC is powerless to stop you?

I can see that those are small numbers against illegal P2P, but the innocent still exist?

I downloaded and now seed the Stainless Steel mod for Medieval Total War 2 via P2P. It's pushing 1.7 GB and is completely legal.

But that's the worst part about this. P2P traffic is being used for both legal and illegal activities, but can proportionately take up a lot of bandwidth, so Charter, RCN, and others would love to discriminate against this traffic and throttle it down.

The reason is that it is irrelevant weather it's legal or not. The innocent and the guilty are not separated at all.The court system does not deal in justice unless you can pay for it. This is noticed in copyright cases and IP cases where it's cheaper to settle then it is to prove you are not guilty. Where is the justice in that?

I think if they are allowing them this leeway they should also be forced to notify users of there actual average download/upload bandwith as compared to the advertised bandwidths they are paying for. This could be done on a month to month basis and included on as part of the ISP's bill.

Throttling P2P is 100% fair. It's content providers taking advantage of ISPs -- by setting up servers on their networks without permission or compensation -- that is not fair.

I want what I pay for, not what they think I should have.

If they're unduly throttling P2P traffic when there's little contention, I would agree that's unfair. However, if there's contention due to oversubscription, then it's entirely appropriate for them to throttle traffic accordingly.

Throttling P2P is 100% fair. It's content providers taking advantage of ISPs -- by setting up servers on their networks without permission or compensation -- that is not fair.

I want what I pay for, not what they think I should have.

If they're unduly throttling P2P traffic when there's little contention, I would agree that's unfair. However, if there's contention due to oversubscription, then it's entirely appropriate for them to throttle traffic accordingly.

Actually, I'll argue that you're quite off base there. If there is oversubscription, then the ISP has failed and is liable for false marketing as they've promised speeds they cannot deliver for the rates they are charging. To further punish the subscribers due to their own lack of proper planning and advertising is flat out wrong of them. If there is a problem with oversubscription, then the ISPs need to upgrade their infrastructure and shift their advertised speeds and pricing accordingly. Not throttle to make it all work to their own lazy/greedy ends.

Throttling P2P is 100% fair. It's content providers taking advantage of ISPs -- by setting up servers on their networks without permission or compensation -- that is not fair.

I want what I pay for, not what they think I should have.

If they're unduly throttling P2P traffic when there's little contention, I would agree that's unfair. However, if there's contention due to oversubscription, then it's entirely appropriate for them to throttle traffic accordingly.

I'm sorry but that's still not right. If they can't handle what they say they can, then don't offer to connect someone or expand your network.

I want advertised speed, no matter what I do with it, and most ISPs cannot even deliver that. If my linux distributions slow to a halt, I will adapt and leave behind yesterday's ways. There's nothing a determined person cannot do.

GCI here in Alaska secretly throttles bandwidth up the wazoo. They have recently taking a liking to "randomly" disconnecting people who uses the P2P protocol. Basically, all WOW players are screwed if they use GCI.

"Many of those involved in the debate over network neutrality appear to believe that ISPs simply don't engage in widespread traffic discrimination, and that the only possible example net neutrality supporters can dredge up involve Comcast and Madison River. Judging by their filings to the FCC, many DC lobbyists subscribe to this view. Take Charter, for instance, which told the FCC"

Yawn, throttling bitorrent. It's 99 and 44/100th illegal traffic.

What we are really worried about is throttling Netflix and not throttling Hulu, because the cable company has a partnership deal with Hulu. Or adding latency to Skype, but not to the cable company's own VOIP services.

Everyone who believes that consumer internet should provide guaranteed speeds at such ridiculously low prices is completely delusional. If you want guaranteed service, buy a leased line and spend >= $400/month. If you want to pay less, deal with the terms and conditions. It's really not that complicated, nor is it any sort of grand conspiracy by providers to deprive you of available bandwidth.

IMHO, it's a little more complicated than some are making it out to be. I live in suburbs of a major city, and if Comcast were to engage in P2P throttling, with or without reason many would say 'if you don't like them, change services'.

And for the most part, I would agree wholeheartedly. It is of course their right to change their policies, and it is my choice as to whether or not I remain a customer of their service because of it.

Unfortunately, in my particular location, the ONLY high speed provider I have available is Comcast. Wide Open West? Available 1 mile down the road, but not in my subdivision. DSL? Not available - too far from the head end. U-Verse? Not available in my subdivision. WiMax/Clearwire? Not in Detroit yet.

So - in my particular area I have NO OTHER CHOICES other than disconnecting from the net entirely if I don't like Comcasts practices, which of course is just not -really- an option.

Another issue I see here is that by running their throttling systems, if they were to base it on any anti-p2p biases, they could potentially open themselves up to possible attacks from the MPAA/RIAA. I can see the legal theory now: "If their networks are so congested with P2P traffic that they need throttling, and 95% of all P2P traffic is illegally shared material, then congress/courts must DO SOMETHING!" Meanwhile if they were to just employ protocol-agnostic methods to manage traffic they could just claim safe harbor as they only provide the pipes without knowing what is going through them. Once they -know- they could be held responsible, especially if they show they can easily shut down such streams of traffic.

I am waiting for the day when they start throttling voip traffic like Vonage or MagicJack in the name of anti-P2P. Then they will turn around and send you offers in the mail for their phone service or magically be able to call you for a moment offering their phone service. Looks like we are in for some shady times ahead.

Throttling P2P is 100% fair. It's content providers taking advantage of ISPs -- by setting up servers on their networks without permission or compensation -- that is not fair.

What are talking about? Everyone is paying for the bandwidth they are using. You're crazy to think that ISPs have right to double dip.

Seconded, it doesn't make sense to limit what is allowed on the connection if someone is paying to be connected.

It does make sense of the usage you're paying for is over-taxing the network, hurting everyone else. Which due to the nature of how bit torrent works, is sadly the case.

You make it sound like ISPs can't upgrade. The only reason it would is if they over sell. Other countries with competition get many times the speed we get at a fraction of the cost. The Internet itself is competition for the more lucrative cable services. Keep the customers on a tight leash and they will spend money with the provider.

So - in my particular area I have NO OTHER CHOICES other than disconnecting from the net entirely if I don't like Comcasts practices, which of course is just not -really- an option.

That is entirely untrue. Leased lines are nearly always available. A colleague of mine lives almost 20 miles from the nearest town of any significant size. His only reasonable option for consumer-grade internet was wireless, but the speeds often sucked (oversubscription & distance)--and that's when the connection was available.

So what did he do? He sucked it up and spent the money on a Verizon T1. Now he has guaranteed speed (oh yeah, and an SLA!), and that's in the middle of nowhere.

Throttling P2P is 100% fair. It's content providers taking advantage of ISPs -- by setting up servers on their networks without permission or compensation -- that is not fair.

I want what I pay for, not what they think I should have.

If they're unduly throttling P2P traffic when there's little contention, I would agree that's unfair. However, if there's contention due to oversubscription, then it's entirely appropriate for them to throttle traffic accordingly.

Or, you know, improve their infrastructure so they can actually deliver on what they're selling. Although I'm sure they'll point to the tiny little "up to" next to the huge number.http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/5/1/

I am waiting for the day when they start throttling voip traffic like Vonage or MagicJack in the name of anti-P2P. Then they will turn around and send you offers in the mail for their phone service or magically be able to call you for a moment offering their phone service. Looks like we are in for some shady times ahead.

Shaw cable did that in western Canada for a while a few years ago. So it's already been done.

I want advertised speed, no matter what I do with it, and most ISPs cannot even deliver that. If my linux distributions slow to a halt, I will adapt and leave behind yesterday's ways. There's nothing a determined person cannot do.

I'm not agreeing with throttling, but your position is just as extreme.

If you want a dedicated line, then pay the $300-$600/month/mbit plus the few grand install.

I do think that advertised speeds should be available at least a certain percentage of the time.In other words, an ISP should only be able to over-subscribe to a certain point.

Im of the firm belief that if you advertise a service, you better deliver, or else that is false advertising, aka a crime. Apparently, the us laws agree .. Unfortunately, the usa is a corporate shrill country, so such laws are usually ignored. ... (?)?

What we are really worried about is throttling Netflix and not throttling Hulu, because the cable company has a partnership deal with Hulu. Or adding latency to Skype, but not to the cable company's own VOIP services.

Can you provide me an example of something like that?

Even if that is true, and it is just you sounding dumb, it wouldn't matter. The ISP sells you a speed cap, and in most areas unlimited monthly access. Other then those conditions they should not be able to adjust what the original deal was.As far as your last question, just give it time it will happen unless they make this illegal.

Everyone who believes that consumer internet should provide guaranteed speeds at such ridiculously low prices is completely delusional. If you want guaranteed service, buy a leased line and spend >= $400/month. If you want to pay less, deal with the terms and conditions. It's really not that complicated, nor is it any sort of grand conspiracy by providers to deprive you of available bandwidth.

The only person here who is delusional, in my opinion, is you. Enough said.

MJ the Prophet wrote:

Or, you know, improve their infrastructure so they can actually deliver on what they're selling. Although I'm sure they'll point to the tiny little "up to" next to the huge number.

I seem to remember a judge saying one time that having that 'small print' was illegal and was false advertising, because no one in the REAL WORLD reads the fine print.The Supreme Court should rule that contracts have to be so succinct that a TWO YEAR OLD can understand them, with no 'fine print' anywhere!

American's simply do not have the time nor energy to read these contracts and all their BULLSHIT fine print!

Everyone who believes that consumer internet should provide guaranteed speeds at such ridiculously low prices is completely delusional. If you want guaranteed service, buy a leased line and spend >= $400/month. If you want to pay less, deal with the terms and conditions. It's really not that complicated, nor is it any sort of grand conspiracy by providers to deprive you of available bandwidth.

What would stop them from prioritizing the traffic on a T1, there is no real difference. you are not buying a pair of copper between buildings. That goes back to their office and they could, legally, do what they wish with you. you need to remember there is a difference between bandwidth, and latency. They could give you 1.5M but then tell you you need to pay another $400 to get it to you faster. The point is there is not a law to stop them from doing that.

I am waiting for the day when they start throttling voip traffic like Vonage or MagicJack in the name of anti-P2P. Then they will turn around and send you offers in the mail for their phone service or magically be able to call you for a moment offering their phone service. Looks like we are in for some shady times ahead.

EXACTLY!!!!! wow you get it. Thats what will happen if we dont get a law passed